ODI Series and Bilateral series a dead concept

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

You'd have to say these days that cricket series of one-day internationals represent 'dead rubber.' Of course, Test cricket is not considered part of this comparison and retains its place in the annals of the game. So, driving public demand are tournaments and leagues instead.

Maybe that's the future of cricket. And why not if TRPs , read - accurate readings of the television audience at a given moment, demand a peek into that conscience?

'Public interest' back 1912
So, public interest may be causing the most popular form of cricket, unarguably between ODI and Twenty20, to veer away to a many splendoured form, with many teams involved at the same time. However, history will peculiarly reveal that it was public interest that caused the demise of the first attempt of a tournament, back in 1912 when England, Australia and South Africa played each other in Tests.

Cricket authorities decided that henceforth they would play more series, but perhaps fine tuning that to say it'd be bilateral series, to balance it out in the end - the logic being that once a series concluded, with the obvious assumption that the host team would have had some home advantage, a return series as soon as feasible in the cricket calendar, where the visitors would now become the hosts, would even it out for both the teams.

Well, coming back to the public interest failure of cricket's first tournament that was a failure in 1912, England, Australia and South Africa played each other. The failure of the tournament did not seem surprising because only 12 years prior, the Olympic Committee felt cricket's inclusion in the 1900 Olympics was as a failure and cancelled the sport from the august Games? Or maybe they weren't impressed that Great Britain beat only France by 158 - akin to the joke in the commentary box when Botham analysed all the fast bowlers' highest batting scores and asked Michael Holding if his "58 was against Iceland in the World Cup Qualifiers!"

Public Interest Again Post 2000 CE
Funnily it is 'public interest' that is initiating a shyly unstated preference for a tournament (the World Cup, Champions Trophy, tri-series) or a league (IPL). Simply, the pundits will analyze if the TV audience is that much more for a tournament vis a vis a regular of one-day internationals and presume that they can have a better revenue sharing model for all. So, will we soon see a day that series (one-day internationals) will rarely take place? Where will be the time in the calendar to accommodate them, even if they're relegated to practice matches where youngsters can be groomed?

Test Cricket Still Genuine for the Cricketers
Test cricket will stay clear of this path-breaking change. A test series was tried out over a decade go, although at different national venues, but was not considered a great success. Moreover, the opinions of all top cricketers has consistently been that Test cricket is real cricket, so it will stay not out of sheer tradition but out of a genuine need of the practitioners.

Rocket launcher Raina fails in more ways than one

Our penchant for records and heros in India will do us in and the culprits of a lost cricket match will get away because they have played to supposed potential, and with the comforting thought that the roll of the die merely meant Indian could not scamper home to victory in the fifth ODI against Australia yesterday.

Too much ebullence

I switched off the TV after Suresh Raina got out, but that was because an early night was badly needed and also the conviction that my prediction would come true - About an over or two before the UP-left-hander's dismissal he launched into a big six, thus making the statement that he can match the ebullient veteran Sachin Tendulkar's strokes. Many wizened men in cricket would have also thought that if the ball was there to be hit, might as well have boundaries and sixes from both ends, than from Tendulkar alone, who had taken centre stage in at least the 10 overs before that.

The quiet death knell

I differed. Raina had looked not his technical-best in recent matches, but leave that aside. He seemed to miss too often when attempting big shots, than the master Tendulkar on the day seemed to have done. It seemed inevitable that the left-hander would fall soon, but worse still the scenario would emerge that the run-a-ball required equation would get difficult because a wicket having fallen would mean the run rate would slow down and undoubtedly, Tendulkar would not be launching into sixes as he so effortlessly had been to the spinners up and until that point. He would then need to play out some balls to 'pick up' that rhythm again, in the company of Harbhajan, or whoever was to follow, therefore making the task difficult for India who would be 5 wickets down at the stage. From there, India would either lose the match or make things difficult from a point of relative ease.

The Vertical Rocket

And so, it was. Suresh Raina soon launched into a rocket, but not one that soared out of the stadium. Instead it was a vertical one that was safely pouched by an Australian fielder. And then the end came to the Indian chase, which I didn't witness.

Heros and Gods

Trouble is that Raina thought he'd done his job of 60 odd runs in a lesser number of balls and his place would be safe. Also, our Indian fans would look back and say he didn't do anything wrong but contributed handsome runs but perished when trying with his partner Tendulkar to keep the required run run rate down to what it was.

Judge them differently

This is the problem with complacency. We must now judge our stars not for their records and their less-than a ball contribution for each run, we must judge them from how they perform in pressure situations and whether they throw away wickets and matches from wanting to gloriously finish off things.

To me, what's important in a chase is not the guy hitting the odd sixes and boundaries (that was Tendulkar) but the other one, who's rotating the strike with singles. The bowling side actually loses rythm when they see that one batter is not out to hit them out of the ground. Why do you think Ponting had his spinners on? To buy wickets for runs and attempted ground-clearing strokes. When both batsmen are hitting, the bowling side feel they have a chance, and actually slip into a rythm. But when one batter is eschewing belligerence, their line and length is not in control, moreover they are in a brain fog.

Suresh Raina lost a good chance to prove he can actually be a good finisher. His running between the wickets seemed also to defy commonsense principles of whose call it is and taking a start. He looked quite out of sorts. He doesn't look like India's find for the future. It's all in the temperament.

Of course, hats off to Tendulkar for a great knock. These knocks must be justified with commonsense thinking from his teammates.

India Lacking Big Tournament Capabilities

30 September 2009

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Saurav Ganguly has aptly summed up the hyped-up Indian team's situation today in saying they don't show big-tournament temperament. It's true that most articles in newspapers analyse why or how the world's top or second best ODI team is failing. Otherwise, they're on about what India should do to reach the Number 1 status.

Is this our way of giving us a second chance to be world champions? Really, this excessively company-sponsored rating system and its awards are making our players lax. It's simple that a defending champion is the world's number 1. You do that by winning the World Cup in the 50-over format. The Champions Trophy being played currently is as near to that format as it gets. Of course, threatening its glamour is the 20-20 World Cup now being held at an alarming 1-year gap.

Victory or Loss - Under Dhoni it's Fine

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

27 September, 2009

What is the Indian cricket fan currently thinking or saying after yesterday's loss to Pakistan? It's not as if this scenario is new. At other times, Dhoni has especially revelled in a Pakistan game and turned things around with either his batting (who can forget his 2004 arrival in big cricket) or captaincy.

Truth is while we all want victories, especially against our arch rivals Pakistan, the Indian fan now can't seem wash the team's dirty linen in public. It's like they've acccepted that in a game, someone's got to lose and they seem fine knowing that it's happening under a capable head like Dhoni's. Look back over ten years and somehow it seems there had been troubled postings by Indian fans when the team underperformed under Sachin or Rahul or Azhar. Talk shows on TV, seemed to have so much to discuss or criticise.

Under Dhoni, the Indian team fan has known true . His abilities have also been appreciated in the IPL where his Chennai team were pipped to second position by a mere whisker in 2008.

The Indian fan's larger acquiscence is also probably from statements by Ajit Wadekar that "Dhoni is the best captain India ever had." The average Indian fan, like that in neighbouring Pakistan may be a fanatic in blinders but the audience tends to listen to a doyen of a captain like that. A more informed cricket follower would also know that Bombay cricketer may praise some skills in players from other states but has rarely gone all out.

Undoubtedly, it would have seemed until that point Bombayite would have conceded only two skills as better among an outside state - pace bowling, exemplified by the hardy jaat Kapil Dev and his Haryana (read northern) tribe, and spin, craftsmen of which hailed largely from the southern states of Karnataka. But many of them are now conceding batting, and even captaincy skills.

Coming back to Dhoni and the after match effects, although at press conferences the captain offers an explanation, as he is bound to, and the press colours things as "mistakes that shouldn't have been committed," the public knows that victories cannot come all the time. Failings are better acceptable if one has tried one's best.

Right now, there's good sense prevailing among the Indian fans at large. People must go back to their nine-to-five jobs Monday to Friday and let India Inc jog along. For would we be in this era of cricket professionalism if it wasn't for India Inc which garnered in all these software imports and pumped in the money? That money funded our 'professional cricket' (read a structure that allows individuals to play cricket for a living through the year).

So, if anybody questions my writing this article on the Indian cricket 'fan,' as opposed to the afficiandos, or those like Gavaskar, Amarnath, Srikanth whose say matters to the team, the answer is that the fan funds 'India Inc' which is indirectly funding our cricket team. Their mood needs to be captured. For now, the Indian fan seems to be saying "Let it be. Let's hope for things to be better."

Sachin's Suggestion

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

27th September 2009

The Champions Trophy brought the focus back on audience participation in a 'long' 100-over affair and opinions on how to tinker with it. Master Blaster Tendulkar has not been shy over the last three years in expressing his opinion on various matters. This one was no exception and from his larger suggestion of breaking it up into a two-innings-of 20-overs-each affair, he probably was keener on 'off-setting' the toss advantage.


Batting where the ball really 'comes on'

Coming to yesterday's lost game to Pakistan where the arch rivals played to a deserved victory, pundits will tend to attribute it to the toss. Negating the toss is favourable this this critic, indeed even dichotomous as a solution. Ordinarily, the word 'negate' means the disadvantaged side will be equally favoured. However, not many think of it as an equal fillip for the toss winning side.

Would a critic, say a Pakistani in this instance actually feel the sheen in the victory has been taken away because anyway the toss gave the advantage? Would this critic rather that the men in green be given credit for the way they played or would have played in a more 'equal' scenario?

There was no doubt the toss winner yesterday would bat first as even the pitch analysts and commentators were saying. Younis Khan's 'bowling' side preferred to 'bat.' The ball really came on and their batters were advantaged. You might argue that the advantage can also 'pass on' to the side batting second (the toss-losing side) how many times have we seen a pitch remain consistent? It's usually broken up or played different. In any case, at the time of the toss, nobody can be sure. This doesn't end here.

In an era when cricket represents psychological battles, the side batting second truly comes under 'true' pressure from the start thus starting the whispers in the crowd of 'unfair disadvantage.' As a case in point, as the innings progresses, many newspapers write so called analytical articles with headlines like "Dravid, Raina exploits fail to match Mohammed Yousuf and Shoaib Malik's" but of course forget that the former two are playing a different role. They're chasing (under pressure) while Yousuf and Malik were picking the loose ball with abandon but didn't need to head to a specific target. Not to mention a 'different surface.' Now, purely as a devil's advocate, I say, "Can this battle be made any more unfair?"

'True victory'
If toss-advantage negation as a theory advances, take the 'triumph' for the winning side. Sachin's suggestion, while maintaining the spectator's interest might bring in the element of a 'true triumph' if the toss-winning side were to win the match.

I think the 'toss' method is really a hangover of an older era when its winning would give a 'marginal' advantage. With cricket teams as grooved as today and an ever present spectator expectation, thought needs to be given to even out advantages that don't represent playing 'on the same surface.' Cricket bigwigs must not be shy to take Sachin's suggestion or for that matter any that represent this end.

Another revolutionary solution, which does away with the toss entirely is to award the 'choosing rights' (of batting or bowling first) based on immediate previous performances. It sounds better than to have 'luck' favour a captain when the coin is tossed up.

Piledrivers not working

Netherlands Vs Pakistan, 9th June 2009, T20 World Cup England

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

One wonders if Netherlands lost the match in basic strategy, at the interim of about 9 overs while chasing. They should have been realistically chasing 151, which by net run rate would have qualified them for the next round, whereas they looked like committting harakiri.

Why the piledriver?
At 49 for 4 in the ninth over, de Groothe tried to hit Shahid Afridi out of the attack and then what followed was stumpings or bowled dismissals involving batsmen stepping out. What if they'd scratched around instead? Eight runs per over from the next seven overs, giving them a total of 106 odd for maybe 6 or 7 wickets, by the end of the 16th?

Eight runs an over tough?

Perhaps the question of how you get eight runs an over between over numbers 10 and 16. Four singles in each and two possible twos = 8 runs. Mind you, the field was defensive, allowing for more twos. With about 45 to get in 24 balls (3 overs), what're the chances they may have succeeded with some lusty hitting?

Chasing the wrong total?

Looks like the Dutch preferred chasing 175. Well played in the tournament anyway.

Where's the 'Momentum' guys?

Deccan Charges Vs Delhi Dardevils, 13 May 2009, IPL-2

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Deccan Chargers throwing away their match against the Delhi Daredevils was pathos personified. No, it wasn't bad luck or nerves. Probably an outdated team strategy.

The issues this article will address are. 1) Is it necessary to narrow down the run-ball equation to a run a ball to give your team the best chance? 2) Is it pandemic of an Indian side, domestic or otherwise (with a minority of foreign professionals) to destroy effort of a top order batsman?

Labour lost

Adam Gilchrist's towering hitting was put to nought by his lower order. The same way that Chennai put to nought another Aussie, another left-hander and another opening bat's great starts earlier in the tournament. Fortunately Chennai have re-grouped and are looking better. But will the Deccan Chargers?

Are we all thinking?

To be fair, it was no individual's fault, nor I would imagine a team's. The blame if any would probably rest with the think tank and in no small way in the way everybody views 20-20 cricket. There is a mindset prevalent among all - cricketers, commentators, cricket gurus that if your team needs about 29 runs off 25 balls, you must strike from both ends to narrow that down to a run a ball. Quite rusty.

Where's the fulcrum?

Yesterday's Deccan Chargers - Delhi Daredevils match had exactly such an equation but instead of T Ravi assuming the fulcrum role to allow Andrew Symonds to attack, the lad chose to display heroics and pushed his luck too far with a backward glide. It points to a fundamental lack of thinking on the team's part, not to give him clearer or a different set of instructions - to stay put and get ones and twos where possible. The less said of his predecessor Suman the better. He too had departed 'heroically' trying to match Gilchrist's (of all the people!) pace.

'Momentum'

Hey, hasn't it been established that Twenty-Twenty is not a bang at both ends affair? We know that one partner, especially when the other is scoring, should play the anchor. The analysts have come up with the word 'momentum' as if exactly identifying the lacuna in batting during a 20-overs game. So, what's the confusion? Is it impetuous youth or a lack of good communication to these young guns, or their ability to understand the communication. Otherwise, it must be said team strategy is totally wrong.

The Equation

Let's address that run-ball equation. It is archaic thinking that with seven wickets in hand, you have to address a target of 29 more runs (25 balls) with suicidal hitting. Won't the odd boundary come within the next over and a half to narrow it down? Isn't Symonds capable of it? T Ravi started experimenting with strokes that take the ball over the wicket-keepers head or to some no-man's land, using the pace of the bowler. At least his judgement should have told him that he is not middling it today so better let senior partner Andrew do it. But he chose the gallant path to heaven. What was he thinking? "Now's my chance to show the world I'm as good as Symonds?" And seven overs earlier, Suman was probably thinking the same thing? And at a time that Gilly was launching balls to the moon. Guys, when there is no need, why err on the side of risk? Why not take a lesson from the Twenty-Twenty cricket that you've see so far?

It's not what, it's how

Deccan Chargers will be hugely upset, not for their loss, but to use that cliched expression, "from where they threw it away." Oh, how about another cliche since we love flogging dead horses - "Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

The architects

To be fair to Gilly and Symonds, they did not commit great errors in their own dismissals. Only those they were allowed after hoisting the team on their shoulders.

Chargers, now charge back and learn from those mistakes.